That is not quite what EST is about.
While EST was about Enlightenment it was as much about Transformation and Landmark Education ran with the theme.
It goes something along the lines of.
You do not have absolute power over what happens (to you).
You have absolute power over the context in which you hold the events which unfold in your life.
Who you are being is correlated to (in a dance with) who you say you are about what is happening in your world.
So my car gets a flat.
Conversation 1 "I am a fucking loser, why does this always happen to me, my life sucks etc"
This guy uses lots of energy kicking his truck, goes to a bar, rolls in at 1am and takes it out on his wife and probably lives in a viscous circle called 'BEING a loser'
Conversation 2 "Okay, my truck got a flat for the fifth time this month, what action can I take to prevent getting more flats"
This guy recognises that anything added to the flat is a story about it.
This guy recognises that by accepting "what's so" he can get to the heart of the matter
Maybe this guy needs to buy new tires and not beer?
This guy may even recognise "when unexpected bad things happen to me, I notice I have a conversation with myself about being a loser, is that really true?"
Okay the point is, perhaps nothing could have prevented the flat.
The first guy in his belief he is a loser, uses the opportunity to prove to himself what a loser he really is and illuminates and acts out a huge drama or story about it.
The second guy recognises he has a story about it and CREATES something in conversation to prevent it from happening again.
He might say "who I am is the possibility of maintaining my truck"
Then when he keeps his word around this and maintains his truck such that he gets less flats, it can be seen that who he is BEING is his WORD and that in BEING his WORD he creates a possibility of a truck which has less flats.
So put simply, his word creates his environment.
Either way, flats or no flats, the second conversation would be a transformed approach, has more options other than REACTION / STORY.
To be honest it is dumb, plain, simple and my problem with it is I like it complicated LOL
Sure, I agree and language is just noise and people rarely hear a word you say anyway.
I listened to some of your recordings twenty times (said in context LOL) before I got what you were saying.
I type up stuff I dictate and check it back and I have typed something totally different to what I just said.
We need BIG symbolism in language.
BIG symbols, simple words.
Hey maybe there is a subculture for you right there?
BIG SYMBOL NLP?
Take some native symbols
WOLF
MOUNTAIN
FIRE
TRIBE
FAMILY
etc
Actually I am sure you have already done that ;)